Narrative Opinion Summary
In the case of Milovan Zekanovic v. American II, Corp. and Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., the appellate court reviewed a decision by the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) concerning the Claimant's right to a one-time change of physician under Florida's workers' compensation law. The Claimant requested a change from his authorized physician, Dr. Pagano, but the Employer/Carrier (E/C) failed to respond within the statutory five-day period. While the JCC acknowledged the E/C's failure to respond, he ruled that the E/C could still select a new physician since the Claimant had not yet sought treatment elsewhere. The appellate court reversed this decision, citing Florida Statute 440.13(2)(f) and precedent from Gadol v. Masoret Yehudit, Inc., which affirm the Claimant's right to choose a physician when the E/C does not respond timely. The court also highlighted the necessity of interpreting statutes based on their plain language, as seen in Perez v. Rooms To Go, and emphasized that any physician change must occur within the same specialty, referencing RetailFirst Insurance Co. v. Davis. The appellate court expressed concern over potential strategic manipulation due to the timing of the Claimant's request and advocated for legislative consideration of such procedural issues. Consequently, the order was reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's findings.
Legal Issues Addressed
Interpretation of Statutes Based on Plain Languagesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reinforced the principle that statutory interpretation should adhere to the statute's plain language, as demonstrated by the JCC's error in allowing the E/C to select a physician without considering the medical specialty.
Reasoning: The JCC's determination that the E/C could select a one-time change in medical provider without considering the physician's specialty contradicts the statute's plain language.
Right to One-Time Change of Physician under Florida Workers’ Compensation Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court determined that the Claimant has the right to select a new physician if the Employer/Carrier fails to respond within five days of the request, regardless of whether the Claimant has sought treatment with a different physician.
Reasoning: The appellate court disagreed with the JCC's interpretation, emphasizing that under Florida Statute 440.13(2)(f), a claimant can choose a physician if the E/C fails to respond within five days.
Timing of Employer/Carrier's Response and Legislative Considerationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court noted the strategic timing concerns related to the E/C's response period and suggested that such issues should be addressed legislatively rather than judicially.
Reasoning: This situation reflects issues previously noted in Hinzman regarding the difference between 'calendar' days and 'business' days, suggesting that such policy matters should be addressed by the Legislature rather than the court.